Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: Shades of Gay... (Read 13591 times)

In the early eighties, all the prettiest boys on campus chose to enjoy some dick. And many of the the average boys too. And the raciest gay boys had one or two hetero flings. This, before any of us knew about HIV/AIDS, and it was the last little flameout of chic bisexuality. Oh all the women were on the pill or had diaphragms. It was all too easy.

A lot of it was choosing to be "wild" and cool, but I bet pretty much everyone's sexuality was really, already fixed, and ended up pretty quickly back to more or less hetero or homo. I don't think there are all that many practicing bisexuals in comparison to mostly homos, mostly heteros, or "entirely" ones or the others. AIDS seemed to make bisexuality REALLY improbable when I was living and working in NYC in the mid and late 80's. Ladies were no longer terribly interesting in screwing their gay buddies, that's for sure.

I seem to remember there was a little S.F. trend of lesbians and gays getting all bi with each other, in the 90's. But my memory falters.... This true? I only lived there in 85.

« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 01:27:07 PM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

I'm open to exploring the role of choice in sexuality and behavior. Some people's sexual attraction appears to be more fixed than others and not just in the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy. Some people have very specific interests, they only interested in a narrow range of stimuli or activities, where other people are more open to a wide variety of experiences: different sexual acts, multiple partners, partners of different ages, racial backgrounds, etc. Sexuality is a fascinating, complex subject and the influences of experience, choice, neurology and genetics should all be explored without fear that we might offend someone's sensibilities.

I am firmly with GSO on this topic. I do not think scientific evidence for genetic predisposition is necessarily of much importance when you look upon the topic of sexuality holistically. Even if genetic markers were someday identified, I think it would be intellectual sloth to reduce anything as complex as human sexuality to "born this way and call it a day". As many of you have identified, there is a wide variety of potential variables at work here, and perhaps numerous others that we have not even envisioned. Human beings also change and adapt over time. Much like our palate for food and drink changes, so do our sexual appetites shift and evolve. We are not static entities. If we were, life would be pretty boring would it not?

I also agree with GSO that political correctness and social niceties should never dictate areas for scholarly research or even casual conversation like we find ourselves doing here. When we self-censor and limit our thinking to only that which conforms to our personal perceptions, we become closed minded fools who are a slave to our own prejudices and bias.

Sexuality is indeed a fascinating topic, and one that deserves to be explored with critical thinking for all of the possibilities.

I Human beings also change and adapt over time. Much like our palate for food and drink changes, so do our sexual appetites shift and evolve. We are not static entities. If we were, life would be pretty boring would it not?

Not suggesting that this is entirely false for everyone, but do you think your sexuality could 'shift and evolve'? Could you see your appetite for heterosexual sex 'evolving' to a desire for homosexual sex having a similar degree of voracious lust you presently feel for women ?

Not suggesting that this is entirely false for everyone, but do you think your sexuality could 'shift and evolve'? Could you see your appetite for heterosexual sex 'evolving' to a desire for homosexual sex having a similar degree of voracious lust you presently feel for women ?

I would not rule out the possibility. I do know that there are several gay men who spend a majority of their life heterosexual only to change later. That change could be attributable to many things though. Perhaps they had always had those desires and social pressures or mores made them repress such feelings? Or perhaps their own sexuality evolved as they experienced new environmental or social stimuli? Hell, maybe they just got bored and wanted to experience something new.

The why is not so much important to me as the social freedom to explore this without the confines of repressive social, political or historical dogma. Some of the current political landscape of the United States still clings to this ambiguous notion of collective morality. I am a firm believer that what happens between consenting adults is not something that should be legislated.

Of course, I suppose you could make the argument that my own overzealous exploration to that end is what landed me here to begin with, but that is another matter entirely.

Well the poll maybe poorly conceived, or could have been put together better, but it was just to start a discussion.

For me, I am ashamed to say, would have cut out the Gayness when I first felt the attraction and realized that greater society looked down on such sexual actions. That from the ages from thirteen to eighteen. After I accepted that not only I was happier being Gay, but I was willing to fight the prejudiced. That took awhile to get to that mindset, but cheers to those brave warriors who fought all their lives to be who they are.

I was expecting some ridicule or the like, but I like all the input. I now realize being born Hetero, just saying, from that point of view on the topic would be like comparing potatoes with tomatoes. One brown, the other red, one is grows on a vine, the other in the ground, one has seeds, the is a type of seed, one gay the other is bi etc... Well, it was interesting and a good read.

Lately the only time I care about how straight people want to define me (and everyone else for that matter) is if they have power and want to limit my equal rights. No equal rights? They can cram their beliefs up the wazoo. Respect my equal rights, shove the rest.

Open minded "straights" so curious to put everyone in categories, what a snore as well.

Geez, their "position" isn't so damn central, nor their identity built on solid ground.

I guess its cute for young people to discuss.. Or people who aren't all that sophisticated. Or from cultures where this is all somewhat new and controversial.

If its done with an open heart and open mind, ok ok.

Personally I find it irksome. Color me crotchety.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

I am not sure the value of "scientific" proof (of anything having to do with sexualized identities or sexual behavior and homo/heterosexualities) having much to say to people who would withhold civil rights, or social respect, to one sexual "identity". People who have elected themselves into a "norm" and given themselves the right to judge and define.

"Scientific" race theories of the 19th century gave us, oh I dunno, 20th century holocausts.

Evolution is scientific fact but 50% (?) of Americans seem dumb enough to believe christian creation myths and further establish false equivalencies - such as that religious hogwash can be logically debated on par with scientific facts, or taught in public schools. What baloney.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Oh, and Romney believes that marriage (besides being the bedrock of all things strong and good of the greatest nation in the world) is between one man and one woman. Conveniently ignoring that his pa and grandpa were polygamists.

Think these people care about science? About any kind of intellectual integrity? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Oh, and Romney believes that marriage (besides being the bedrock of all things strong and good of the greatest nation in the world) is between one man and one woman. Conveniently ignoring that his pa and grandpa were polygamists.

Think these people care about science? About any kind of intellectual integrity? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bullshit.

George Romney's grandparents (Mitt's great-grandparents) were polygamists. George and his parents were monogamists.

I do know that there are several gay men who spend a majority of their life heterosexual only to change later. That change could be attributable to many things though. Perhaps they had always had those desires and social pressures or mores made them repress such feelings?

Yeah, it's almost always that. Or they're a degree of bisexual, not entirely satisfied being monogamous with a woman and feel the need to dip their beak into manly testosterone every now and then. I don’t mean to condescend, but being a straight guy you can’t possibly grasp the variety of factors that push many gays into the closet or to ‘live a lie’, at times even deluding themselves that they’re ‘normal’- so as to fall into line with what family/society expects of you. (Not saying this is right, but that it does happen everywhere to some degree.) Nearly all gays will attest to the fact that they’ve always felt at some level, that they were born outside the conventions of what’s considered acceptable.

Honestly, all of this evolution of sexuality and ‘one should be able to choose what you want’ sounds great in theory, but in practice I feel sexuality is far more intrinsic and hardwired than that. I don’t think I’m off the mark in saying that for the vast majority of people, we can’t help whom we’re attracted to. It happens of its own accord. The reason I'm (and I suspect Joe, Henry, Miss P and some others are) mildly irritated by this all-embracing ‘you get to pick your sexuality’ theorizing is that it could more likely give fodder to bigots and homophobes, of whom there’s no scarcity in this world, to inject a vicious bite into the argument that gays exercise an ‘active choice’ in being different- that we've given into carnal perversions, that we’re deviants who chose the path of mortal sin.

Do not forget that across the world heterosexuality is presupposed to be the expected norm and being gay is considered to be outside the conventions of what’s ‘normal’. Choice of sexuality as a birth right sounds very idealistic but I think society as a whole needs to evolve first to the point that a mother would tell her straight 18 year old son, “Son, why don’t you explore your sexuality and go on a date with Liam. He’s so handsome and charming. Give it a go.” I can’t see any parent telling their straight son that- for homosexuality is not deemed to be on an equal footing with heterosexuality by most people. When was the last time you heard of a straight person being physically assaulted for simply being heterosexual? A person’s heterosexuality is never challenged, but all gay people’s homosexual proclivities have been called into scrutiny at some point by someone or the other, in one form or another, let alone the prejudice faced from society at large. Until society as a whole 'evolves' to the point of accepting all forms of sexual expression and identity being on par, in my opinion, all of this equality of choice stuff (as a political and moral imperative) is counterproductive since it encumbers the path to attaining global equality for all sexual minorities.

Honestly, all of this evolution of sexuality and ‘one should be able to choose what you want’ sounds great in theory, but in practice I feel sexuality is far more intrinsic and hardwired than that. I don’t think I’m off the mark in saying that for the vast majority of people, we can’t help whom we’re attracted to. It happens of its own accord. The reason I'm (and I suspect Joe, Henry, Miss P and some others are) mildly irritated by this all-embracing ‘you get to pick your sexuality’ theorizing is that it could more likely give fodder to bigots and homophobes, of whom there’s no scarcity in this world, to inject a vicious bite into the argument that gays exercise an ‘active choice’ in being different- that we've given into carnal perversions, that we’re deviants who chose the path of mortal sin.

Edited for clarity

That is just it man. I don't really think sexuality is "active" choice at all. Like, for example, I am choosing to have Subway for lunch. I think it works on a more subconscious (or "innate" as you say) level that is influenced by a host of other factors. Moreover, I think it is entirely too complex for us to attempt to hypothesize on here. People have wrote 200 page doctoral dissertations on the subject and still barely scratched the surface.

I would also agree that bigots may try to use sexuality/scholarly research in a manner to further their prejudices. I can think of an example of the book "The Bell Curve", written by Hernnstein and Murray, which explored the idea of intelligence quotient. The book itself is well constructed from a research standpoint, but because it made reference to race in 2 chapters, White supremacy clans (who probably lack the intelligence to even read the book) attempted to use it to fuel their bigotry.

While I find situations like these unfortunate, does that mean that the academic community should simply not study certain areas because it may make certain demographics uncomfortable? I think that scenario is even more repressive and dictatorial than the status quo.

In the classes I have had in human sexuality and sociology, it is typically a hell worthy trespass from professors to even infer that sexuality is a "choice". However, considering that there is no data that is forthcoming in biology or genetics that I have ever read in the peer-reviewed literature, is it really so outrageous to make the argument?

Perhaps, but I drew no conclusions, only posed questions, and I did so in a respectful manner.

Saying that these types of discussions are off limits is about akin to the republicans saying stem-cell research is immoral and should not pursued either.

Nobody said anything about not wanting to discuss the topic, only that we expected some sensitivity from you as the OP. After a few replies it became apparent that some of us bristled at what you had said and that is our right. Nobody raked you over the coals, but you seem unable to truly understand how damaging this idea of "gay choice" really is to us. I'm 58 years old and I have been despised for being gay since the day I was born. When I tested poz and came out as gay, my friends, my church and even my father turned me away, because of who I am.

Do you have any concept on what it is like, to be a child and hear everyone around you denouncing you, simply because you are gay. I didn't do anything to deserve this hatred, I simply existed. There was nothing I could have (or should have) done to change who I am, because the problem does not lie with me. To put you in my place, when is the last time you were denigrated for being a heterosexual? And isn't a lot of the stigma directed as you, because you are poz, also based on the assumption that you must be gay. I imagine you might find it very unsettling to be judged, based on prejudice and stereotypes. I know I do.

I don't think you appreciate how sensitive this subject is to gays and now you know. This thread is not just some academic discussion, it's a discussion about many of our lives and the pain and suffering we have experienced at the hands of others.

These types of arguments typically circulate around the age old "nature vs. nurture" paradigm. I personally think human sexuality is a combination of both, and in some instances one variable may be a stronger influence than the other.

True, there's no conclusive scientific evidence, but there is some data that lends credence to the view that biology does play a role (whether big or small is a matter of ongoing debate).

I know Wiki is slightly dubious source but here goes, for amusement if nothing else:...

Personally I don't think biology "plays a role" but that biology is the predominant factor in the equation of sexuality and sexual orientation. Being born male or female is the most obvious characterist but I suspect that sexual attraction and orientation is similar to temperament, which is present at birth. Psychologist Jerome Kagan did research where he found that infants are born with a temperamental disposition to be either inhibited or uninhibited, which can be measured in the brain and observed in the way they react to unfamiliar situations and persons. Inhibited children are shy, timid, and cautious, while uninhibited children are bold, social, and outgoing. What is particularly telling about these temperamental characteristics is that they are more than mere personality quirks or curiosities; they can have influences on behavior, attitudes, and even material success that extend well into later life-depending on the ways in which they interact with the individual's environment. Kagan's research agenda has involved identifying and examining characteristics that appear to influence individuals' development. While temperament is the most important characteristic, he and his colleagues have isolated several others, including birth order, identification with an influential family member, being valued by one's parents, and one's personal history of success or failure.

I suspect all these factors influence sexual expression in a similar manner, with a biological predisposition toward a particular sexual orientation being the most influential. I have no good research to support this theory but it fits my subjective experience. I'm introverted by temperament, by all account have been so my entire life and Kagan's research indicates I was born this way. I have spent my life conditioning myself to deal with social situations and can "fake"extroversion but I'm always going to be exhausted by groups, live in my head, think twice before speaking... oh, and not be a fan of having people who I am not intimate with hug me. I think my homosexual orientation is similarly innate-- I could "fake" being straight with varying degrees of success but I'm always going to revert to my "sexual temperament", so to speak.

Personally I don't think biology "plays a role" but that biology is the predominant factor in the equation of sexuality and sexual orientation.

I feel likewise. Most of us know from within that it isn't a choice and thus, if unequivocal scientific evidence corroborates this somewhere down the road, then I don't see it as a bad development in LGBT history.

there is sure a genetic basis for homosexuality, well it is not proven yet. so not possible to say it is true, or other way. like CODgamerz told it is not possible to say anything for certain. (like saying "it is not genetic.")

for me, it is not a choice of course. it is not called sexual preferences anymore, it is sexual orientation. everyone knows that it is obviously not a choice, even it is a choice, it is not made by the person himself/herself. it can't be only genetic because it is not inherited any genetic way we know. it obviously need "outer stimulation". there might be people with same genetic basis about homosexuality and one can be gay and other can be heterosexual. this means genetic basis mostly need external stimulus. so only logical think i can think of is, a easy one, genetic+external stimulus. external stimulus includes all your birth, infancy, childhood etc... everybody knows psychosexual development stages now, so it is not easy to guess actually.

of course this could be totally wrong, homosexuality could not be a difference but a disorder. i am gay myself, and i don't believe this. but it is not possible to say something "disorder" or "choice" without proving the otherwise. maybe we cannot say it is "something" but we can say it is not a choice. because "choice" is human made word. and it means "choosing something". i haven't met any gay person who says "i am gay because i wanted to be."

and of course there is another thing called bisexual. my current bf is a bisexual, he is really a great guy. although he had sex with men before, i am his first boyfriend. his previous relationships are always girls. and he still finds girls attractive as much as a heterosexual guy. i be live, it is not simple as being "gay" "bisexual" "heterosexual". like Kinsey's findings, it might be scale, which could be really complicated. but i don't believe any of these is choice.

for example: you can choose to have sex with a girl or boy if you are bi, but you cannot choose to be a bisexual.

I've just read all the post, and "WHAT BIG TEETH YOU HAVE GRANDMA." I feel that I had inclinations to be gay definitely in ages from 8 t0 16. At that stage I choose to act straight, (as best I could) walk straight, (no twitching) and talk straight (keep the topics on sports). Of course my ability was limited to what I was conditioned to believe was being a MAN, and follow that maze to the goal of society acceptances. I did not always colored inside the lines, which showed sometime when guys would say that they can really talk to me rather than the others guys. I guess I was a real listener and not just "shooting the breeze" to whomever was in ear shot.

But there did come a point that I had to be open to my wonted need for sexual if not casual and intimate contact with other men. It was just not worth the price to go the path of sex with women, getting married, having kids, grand kids, family reunions with other straight families, etc... and the whole time in pain for I would be hiding the secret that my true nature was to be GAY. It was a choice to be Happy and live freely or to be miserable and beg for death.

Either way there are "MANY SHADES OF SEXUALITY," and being Gay is just one of them. I should have known that the topic of "nurture vs. nature" would come up, but really it then becomes a two way street. Just like "when you go BLACK you wont go back," so is "once you go GAY you want to stay that way." Yeah, off topic... What I meant to say was that if N v N is the cause of being Gay, then the reverse is true. Have anyone wrote a paper saying that heterosexuality is divergent from the norm and therefore must be eliminated? Blab, blab, blab... Too must noise in my head.

But I must say I have a better understanding and respect for those who were punished for being openly or obviously Gay; they'd fought and survived. (or some survived: let's not forget the unsung heroes who were murdered) "What does not kill you makes you stronger," but the torture and the agony of that trail.oh the pain it causes...